A couple days ago in class, Br. Tom mentioned that She Stoops to Conquer was reminiscent of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. In Midsummer's, the two couples are Lysander and Hermia and Demetrius and Helena. In She Stoops, we have Marlow and Miss Hardcastle and Hastings and Miss Nellie. Tony likewise plays the part of Puck, bringing the couples together. Of course, there are differences, as no one switched interests like they do in Midsummer's, but even so the easy humor and happy ending seem similar enough. Did anyone else find these similarities as well?
On a separate note, I guess this also recalls the fact that they are really only a few major human stories to tell, stories that have been repeated continuously throughout history in one form or another. Shakespeare certainly hit all of them, repeating them more often than not. You have the comedies and tragedies, the romances, the supernatural. To that extent, can any work of art be truly original? Is it apt to make comparisons when it only makes sense that comparisons would arise? - AHa-c Feb 10, 2008 I really don't see that many similarities between She Stoops to Conquer and Midsummer Night's Dream. I guess I didn't notice the similarities because the portrayal of love between couples as being comedic isn't exactly an original idea. There are many more stories out there in which one person tries to bring other people together which results in a funny story. I think that this goes back to the idea that no story is really an original story. It has all been done before. This sounds kind of depressing if you want to write books, but I think it is true because we are so influenced by everything that we read. We remember much more than we think and it influences us when we sit down to write a story. Almost everything that we write is a combination or twist on something that we have read or experienced. I think that this is why we can make endless comparisons between works because they often share many things in common especially if they are of the same genre or from the same time period. Are works of art influenced more by past works or by the current society?- bga-c Feb 11, 2008
I can understand where AHa is coming from when she sees the similarities between A Midsummer's Night Dream and She Stoops to Conquer because of those relationships. Tony and Puck do share some of the same traits when it comes to their character and their affect on the plotline. For example, they both planned bringing together those specific relationships, and after a small while, accidents took their course, and the couples still stayed together.
Not to mention the fact that both plays were humorous, they were made to entertain the people of the time, to put a twist on the common comedy. And as for the repetition of the styles, I think that both stories were completely original. Goldsmith branched out and was able to contort some of the ideas of the traditional romantic comedy and add his own flair. - bzw-c Feb 12, 2008
I agree with Aha and Bga--all works of art, are, in essence, an new expression of an idea or experience from our lives. Therefore, art is rarely something completely new. After all, we only know what we have experienced, and that is what our imagination works off of. However, I believe that this is the factor that distinguishes talent from genius. Someone who is talented could take one of those universal ideas and weave it into an original, engaging play or novel. Genius, on the other hand, involves thinking on an entirely new and different plane to come up with ideas that are completely original. Look at artistic geniuses of the past like Beethoven or Picasso or (though I know many people will disagree with me here) Woolf: these people came up with entirely new ideas and expressions, rather just than working with what they knew. They were so incredibly creative that they had difficulty functioning in a normal life. Their ideas were new, whereas talented people simply reuse what they have been given in an interesting and creative way.
Therefore, it makes sense that there would be many similarities between Shakespeare and Goldsmith, as it is safe to say that Goldsmith was a talented man, reusing common themes in his book. And, of course, reusing those themes is not a bad thing, as it has given us some of our best entertainment--I read once that George Lucas looked for common themes in mythology and folk-lore to create the Star Wars movies. However, my question is about Shakespeare: was he truely a genius, or just incredibly talented at his work? - lsi-c Feb 13, 2008
I totally agree that there are similarities between these two plays. They both have two couples falling in love and yes, I agree that Tony and Puck are a lot a like. The connections between these two plays make perfect sense to me. Of course there are going to be differences though. There are a lot of stories that have been influenced by other stories but I think what makes them interesting is how the author is able to change certain elements and make their own and still make people want to read it. I like being able to compare two different works that I have read, it makes both of them more enjoyable. Last year when we read Midsummer's I loved it and being able to relate this play to that made me enjoy this one even more. I think being able to connect two works also helps me really look at what is going on in the story and put everything together. So I agree that these plays can be compared and I also agree that not every work is completely original. - kfr-c Feb 14, 2008
Intersesting that you mention that AHa because I too found similarities between this story and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The basic plot lines are similar in that couples who are in love are prevented from comming together because of strange circumstances. In Shalespeare's play, Puck and Oberon create conflict, while in this play Tony has this role. Both of the plays reflect a theme of the difficulty of love. For example, in She Stoops to Conquer, Mrs. Hardcastle attempts to marry Miss Neville and Tony when in reality Miss Neville loves Hastings and Tony hates her.
However, this play does differ from Shakepseare's in that it does not include magic and no relationships are disrupted. Meaning that someone who is in love never begins to love anyone else because of outside forces like in A Midsummer Night's Dream. - KSm-c Feb 14, 2008
Aside from their being two young couples in both stories, the mixed up lovers' interests are another facet of the plot that both plays have in common. Now, KSm, you mentioned how Mrs. Hardcastle tries to marry off Miss Neville and Tony, just like in a "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Hermia's parents wanted her to marry Demetrius. However, Miss Neville really loves Hastings and Tony hates her. Doesn't that seem a little too close to the fact that in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Hermia really loves Lysander and plans to run away with him disrespecting her parents. And then still, after Puck tries to fix the mess, neither Lysander or Demetrius likes her, kind of like how Tony doesn't like Miss Neville. Regardless of what play we're talking about, it's obvious that Shakespeare and Goldsmith both have a witty outlook on young love. It's silly at times, parents don't always approve of their son's or daughter's choice in love interest, feelings can change in a heartbeat, and sometimes they don't even apppear to make sense. Doesn't that make young love sound great? - AGe-c Feb 15, 2008
Just because we say these two plays are similar, doesn’t mean they have to compare to each other in every way. I definitely see the relationship between these two plays. Sure, a Midsummer Nights Dream had a more magical quality to it, but many of the essential elements that moved the plot along were the same. There was the connection of confusing love and a middle person who caused mischief. I think the main thing we should take from this is realizing what a brilliant writer Shakespeare was. The simple fact that he’s the only, or one of the only, writers from that time whom we all know proves how he is brilliant enough to still have an impact on this world. Lsi asked if he was a genius, or just incredibly talented in his work. I think he fits under the genius category, at least when it comes to literature and theater. By this time, there are barely any works that are entirely original. And Shakespeare put his foot in many of the common themes and elements that we still read today. - kec-c Feb 15, 2008
This connection makes total sense to me although I wasn't sure which Shakespearean story this play related to. The first reaction I had upon reading this play was that it was reminiscent of Shakespeare, but I could not put my finger on which play as I'm not what you would call a Shakespearean scholar by any stretch of the word. I looked up the basic plot of Midsummer Night's Dream and it seems to all fit with what you are all saying in its relationship to this play so kudos to everyone for finding that. Now, I will say that although I could not figure out which play it related to, I knew right from the get-go that this play sounded like Shakespeare; it just had a Shakespeare vibe that struck me right away with people running around in confusion and lovers never quite knowing what to do. I think this plays into the idea that Goldsmith was doing a comedic parody of Shakespearean forms by essentially retelling a Midsummer Night's Dream albeit with a few alterations and just making all the odd confusion elements even more confusing. Like Puck, Tony is pretty much the guy running the show from behind the scenes making sure that everyone ends up with who they're supposed to end up with and it works.
I will agree though slightly with this notion that there are only so many stories to tell. By that I mean that there are only so many BASIC stories to tell, and authors can just branch off of those forever. Before a Midsummer Night's Dream, I'm sure someone in the ancient world wrote and performed a play of confused lovers, and Shakespeare took it and adapted it for his uses. Goldsmith only continued that tradition albeit by poking fun at the central story. I think there are a limited number of stories that act as tree roots in a sense, but there are a million directions where authors can branch off and so while the basic story remains the same, there will always be little different quirks in each subsequent adaptation.- KRi-c Feb 15, 2008
I immediately thought of Midsummer Night's Dream when we started reading this, before Br. Tom said anything about it. I thought the comic aspect of it and all of the lies and secrets, though not exactly like MsND, were very similar. But really, if you look at it, the idea that there are no original stories is pretty true. There are only so many themes that encompass all of humanity. There aren't really any new emotions being invented, so people are in essence the exact same as they were thousands of years ago. And writers use human experiences and emotions to create stories. So, of course they are all branches of each other. Look at all the romantic comedy movies, even: much of the time, they have the same basic build as MsND and SStC. - mmi-c Feb 16, 2008
On a separate note, I guess this also recalls the fact that they are really only a few major human stories to tell, stories that have been repeated continuously throughout history in one form or another. Shakespeare certainly hit all of them, repeating them more often than not. You have the comedies and tragedies, the romances, the supernatural. To that extent, can any work of art be truly original? Is it apt to make comparisons when it only makes sense that comparisons would arise? -
I really don't see that many similarities between She Stoops to Conquer and Midsummer Night's Dream. I guess I didn't notice the similarities because the portrayal of love between couples as being comedic isn't exactly an original idea. There are many more stories out there in which one person tries to bring other people together which results in a funny story. I think that this goes back to the idea that no story is really an original story. It has all been done before. This sounds kind of depressing if you want to write books, but I think it is true because we are so influenced by everything that we read. We remember much more than we think and it influences us when we sit down to write a story. Almost everything that we write is a combination or twist on something that we have read or experienced. I think that this is why we can make endless comparisons between works because they often share many things in common especially if they are of the same genre or from the same time period. Are works of art influenced more by past works or by the current society?-
I can understand where AHa is coming from when she sees the similarities between A Midsummer's Night Dream and She Stoops to Conquer because of those relationships. Tony and Puck do share some of the same traits when it comes to their character and their affect on the plotline. For example, they both planned bringing together those specific relationships, and after a small while, accidents took their course, and the couples still stayed together.
Not to mention the fact that both plays were humorous, they were made to entertain the people of the time, to put a twist on the common comedy. And as for the repetition of the styles, I think that both stories were completely original. Goldsmith branched out and was able to contort some of the ideas of the traditional romantic comedy and add his own flair. -
I agree with Aha and Bga--all works of art, are, in essence, an new expression of an idea or experience from our lives. Therefore, art is rarely something completely new. After all, we only know what we have experienced, and that is what our imagination works off of. However, I believe that this is the factor that distinguishes talent from genius. Someone who is talented could take one of those universal ideas and weave it into an original, engaging play or novel. Genius, on the other hand, involves thinking on an entirely new and different plane to come up with ideas that are completely original. Look at artistic geniuses of the past like Beethoven or Picasso or (though I know many people will disagree with me here) Woolf: these people came up with entirely new ideas and expressions, rather just than working with what they knew. They were so incredibly creative that they had difficulty functioning in a normal life. Their ideas were new, whereas talented people simply reuse what they have been given in an interesting and creative way.
Therefore, it makes sense that there would be many similarities between Shakespeare and Goldsmith, as it is safe to say that Goldsmith was a talented man, reusing common themes in his book. And, of course, reusing those themes is not a bad thing, as it has given us some of our best entertainment--I read once that George Lucas looked for common themes in mythology and folk-lore to create the Star Wars movies. However, my question is about Shakespeare: was he truely a genius, or just incredibly talented at his work? -
I totally agree that there are similarities between these two plays. They both have two couples falling in love and yes, I agree that Tony and Puck are a lot a like. The connections between these two plays make perfect sense to me. Of course there are going to be differences though. There are a lot of stories that have been influenced by other stories but I think what makes them interesting is how the author is able to change certain elements and make their own and still make people want to read it. I like being able to compare two different works that I have read, it makes both of them more enjoyable. Last year when we read Midsummer's I loved it and being able to relate this play to that made me enjoy this one even more. I think being able to connect two works also helps me really look at what is going on in the story and put everything together. So I agree that these plays can be compared and I also agree that not every work is completely original. -
Intersesting that you mention that AHa because I too found similarities between this story and A Midsummer Night's Dream. The basic plot lines are similar in that couples who are in love are prevented from comming together because of strange circumstances. In Shalespeare's play, Puck and Oberon create conflict, while in this play Tony has this role. Both of the plays reflect a theme of the difficulty of love. For example, in She Stoops to Conquer, Mrs. Hardcastle attempts to marry Miss Neville and Tony when in reality Miss Neville loves Hastings and Tony hates her.
However, this play does differ from Shakepseare's in that it does not include magic and no relationships are disrupted. Meaning that someone who is in love never begins to love anyone else because of outside forces like in A Midsummer Night's Dream. -
Aside from their being two young couples in both stories, the mixed up lovers' interests are another facet of the plot that both plays have in common. Now, KSm, you mentioned how Mrs. Hardcastle tries to marry off Miss Neville and Tony, just like in a "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Hermia's parents wanted her to marry Demetrius. However, Miss Neville really loves Hastings and Tony hates her. Doesn't that seem a little too close to the fact that in "A Midsummer Night's Dream," Hermia really loves Lysander and plans to run away with him disrespecting her parents. And then still, after Puck tries to fix the mess, neither Lysander or Demetrius likes her, kind of like how Tony doesn't like Miss Neville. Regardless of what play we're talking about, it's obvious that Shakespeare and Goldsmith both have a witty outlook on young love. It's silly at times, parents don't always approve of their son's or daughter's choice in love interest, feelings can change in a heartbeat, and sometimes they don't even apppear to make sense. Doesn't that make young love sound great? -
Just because we say these two plays are similar, doesn’t mean they have to compare to each other in every way. I definitely see the relationship between these two plays. Sure, a Midsummer Nights Dream had a more magical quality to it, but many of the essential elements that moved the plot along were the same. There was the connection of confusing love and a middle person who caused mischief. I think the main thing we should take from this is realizing what a brilliant writer Shakespeare was. The simple fact that he’s the only, or one of the only, writers from that time whom we all know proves how he is brilliant enough to still have an impact on this world. Lsi asked if he was a genius, or just incredibly talented in his work. I think he fits under the genius category, at least when it comes to literature and theater. By this time, there are barely any works that are entirely original. And Shakespeare put his foot in many of the common themes and elements that we still read today. -
This connection makes total sense to me although I wasn't sure which Shakespearean story this play related to. The first reaction I had upon reading this play was that it was reminiscent of Shakespeare, but I could not put my finger on which play as I'm not what you would call a Shakespearean scholar by any stretch of the word. I looked up the basic plot of Midsummer Night's Dream and it seems to all fit with what you are all saying in its relationship to this play so kudos to everyone for finding that. Now, I will say that although I could not figure out which play it related to, I knew right from the get-go that this play sounded like Shakespeare; it just had a Shakespeare vibe that struck me right away with people running around in confusion and lovers never quite knowing what to do. I think this plays into the idea that Goldsmith was doing a comedic parody of Shakespearean forms by essentially retelling a Midsummer Night's Dream albeit with a few alterations and just making all the odd confusion elements even more confusing. Like Puck, Tony is pretty much the guy running the show from behind the scenes making sure that everyone ends up with who they're supposed to end up with and it works.
I will agree though slightly with this notion that there are only so many stories to tell. By that I mean that there are only so many BASIC stories to tell, and authors can just branch off of those forever. Before a Midsummer Night's Dream, I'm sure someone in the ancient world wrote and performed a play of confused lovers, and Shakespeare took it and adapted it for his uses. Goldsmith only continued that tradition albeit by poking fun at the central story. I think there are a limited number of stories that act as tree roots in a sense, but there are a million directions where authors can branch off and so while the basic story remains the same, there will always be little different quirks in each subsequent adaptation.-
I immediately thought of Midsummer Night's Dream when we started reading this, before Br. Tom said anything about it. I thought the comic aspect of it and all of the lies and secrets, though not exactly like MsND, were very similar. But really, if you look at it, the idea that there are no original stories is pretty true. There are only so many themes that encompass all of humanity. There aren't really any new emotions being invented, so people are in essence the exact same as they were thousands of years ago. And writers use human experiences and emotions to create stories. So, of course they are all branches of each other. Look at all the romantic comedy movies, even: much of the time, they have the same basic build as MsND and SStC. -